Logical reasoning PrepTest 140 · Section 1 · Question 7

Incorrect. The argument never states that the benefit mentioned by Gillette won't happen—just that there might be more drawbacks than benefits. Since this answer doesn't appear in the argument, it's not the main point.

Incorrect. This answer is the support for why the Ethicist finds Gillette's argument unpersuasive. We can tell it's a premise since it's introduced by a premise indicator word ("because").

Incorrect. The Ethicist never makes a normative statement ("should") about genetics. She doesn't even state that genetics will be a net negative, just that Gillette's argument for it being a net positive isn't persuasive.

Incorrect. The Ethicist doesn't point out that the benefit stated by Gillette is overstated or wrong, but mainly that he doesn't explore the potential drawbacks.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Valid

Question Type:
Main Point

Stimulus Summary:
Gillette: Genetics will let us cure genetic diseases, so it'll be a net benefit.

Ethicist: The knowledge might do more harm than good, so Gillette's conclusion is unpersuasive.

Answer Anticipation:
When the author of an argument explores the entire argument (premise(s)/conclusion) of an opposing point, it can be helpful to break those arguments apart in your head to better follow along—especially in a question that's dealing with structural features of the argument.

Here, the Ethicist pivots away from Gillette's argument ("however") with an opinion on Gillette's argument—it's not persuasive. Pivots to opinions on the opposing point are generally the main point of the argument, and that's the case here, backed up by the rest of the argument serving as a premise in support of that view ("because . . . "). The main point, therefore, is that Gillette's argument about genetics benefiting humanity despite the cost is unpersuasive.

Answer Explanation:
This answer reflects the main point, stating that an argument about benefits is unpersuasive/unconvincing because it ignores the drawbacks.

Key Takeaway:
In arguments with opposing points, authors will pivot at some point. Sometimes, that pivot is to their main point; others, it's a pivot to a counterpoint. In general, a pivot to the author's opinion of the opposing point will be a pivot to the main point of the argument.